Subcommittee presses USPTO director on IPR rule changes, AI tools and centralized PTAB authority

USPTO Director K. Squires told a House Judiciary subcommittee that his office is pursuing a package of reforms to curb serial post‑grant challenges and to give examiners new AI tools — steps he said are aimed at improving patent quality and reducing backlogs.

"We're saying we have to have some clarity, quiet title, finally," Squires said, describing the agency's notice of proposed rulemaking on inter partes review (IPR) as intended to “restore fairness and balance” and to favor joinder over repeated serial petitions (SEG 1184–1196). He also announced an "agentic AI trademark classification tool" that he said reduced a five‑month manual workload to "five seconds," and an AI search assistant delivering a top‑10 prior art list before the first office action (SEG 1081–1089).

Members from both parties pressed Squires on the practical effects of the changes, particularly whether the NPRM had accounted for increased litigation costs that could follow if more disputes move from PTAB to district court. "We are required to consider economic efficiency ... and effects of those sorts," Squires said, noting the office had received more than 11,800 public comments on the rule (SEG 1567–1575, SEG 1569–1579).

Why the rule now? Supporters framed it as a response to serial filings that force patent holders to defend the same claims repeatedly. Squires described the NPRM as a way to allow multiple challengers to join a single consolidated review so that validity is resolved sooner rather than in repeated waves (SEG 1191–1201). He said the discretionary component of institution decisions will continue to weigh economic impact and fairness.

Lawmakers questioned the centralization of institution authority in the director’s office. Several members said the practice departs from earlier PTAB procedures in which three‑member panels of administrative patent judges made institution calls, and raised concerns about summary denials that provide little or no reasoning. "Now we routinely deny requests for PTAB review ... without giving any written explanation," one member said (SEG 2090–2146).

Squires defended the discretion, citing 35 U.S.C. authorities and the requirement to weigh resource allocation and system integrity. He also said the office consults PTAB judges before institutional decisions and that detailed written decisions are issued when the agency believes guidance is needed (SEG 2114–2116, SEG 2147–2153).

On national‑security and foreign‑backing concerns tied to patent challenges, Squires pointed to restored real‑party‑in‑interest (RPI) disclosures and a recent TiVo decision he said removes U.S. government agencies and foreign sovereigns from PTAB participation (SEG 1470–1478, SEG 1928–1936). He said guidance invites American manufacturers to "tell their story" so discretionary institution decisions can consider impacts to domestic production (SEG 1484–1491, SEG 1980–1987).

Members also asked about the agency’s courtroom strategy and appetite for injunctions for strong patents; Squires said the USPTO has been active as a policy voice and partner in filings with the Department of Justice to defend injunctive relief where appropriate (SEG 2310–2324).

What comes next: the USPTO remains in rule‑finalization mode and has pledged to analyze comments before issuing a final rule. Members requested further data on the incidence of serial filings, institutional rates, and any analysis of how the proposed changes would shift litigation costs; the committee gave the director five legislative days to respond to written questions and additional requests for documents before adjournment (SEG 3056–3169, SEG 3196–3207).

Ending: The hearing left unsettled questions about whether the proposed changes will curb abusive serial petitions without shifting costs and uncertainty onto smaller patentees. The subcommittee said it intends follow‑up oversight on the effect of the rule and on the USPTO’s exercise of discretionary authority.